Posts by OrphanCrow

21

What do you think is the origin of Giants and/or Sasquatch?

by The Real Edward Gentry in

jw
friends

genesis says a lot about both pre-flood and post-flood giants.the really big nasty ones drowned in the flood but there were lots of others the israelites had to overcome including the king of basham with his 11 foot iron bed.people nowadays are much smaller and i think its due in part to us losing more and more of adams perfection.

i turn my attention to the animals that went onboard the ark but are as yet undiscovered.

during president knorr's time the panda bear was discovered in a market place in china and eventually an american team tracked them down in the wild.

OrphanCrow

The Real Edward: I turn my attention to the animals that went onboard the Ark but are as yet undiscovered. During President Knorr's time the panda bear was discovered in a market place in China and eventually an American team tracked them down in the wild. After this the panda was added to the list of animals that Noah cared for.

And I turn my attention to your lack of attention to accuracy.

Westerners first encountered (not "discovered") the panda bear in 1869.

Knorr et all (and you) really need to get up to speed.

I believe the Sasqatch to be in this category. There is huge evidence of them living in the dense forests of North America.

Heehee

And there is HUGE evidence that if you ever look a Sasquatch in the eyes that he will take you back into the parallel world that he lives in.

Heehee

2+2: For me, it’s the humour that makes this site.

Me too. And to think that this is only Saturday. Usually it is Sunday morning that has the most chuckles

7

The True Heir of the Roman Empire was not the Anglosphere, or Western Europe - It was the Russian Imperial Empire.

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

may i recommend this podcast discussing the russian revolution.

its made by a the conversation, an academic web-site, and features interviews with a number of historians.

i recommend it because an in-depth knowledge of history will protect your thinking from the shallow historical interpretation evident in the jws concept of a progression of world powers and the view of ww1 being a world war.

OrphanCrow

Fulltimestudent: even all those years of atheistic teaching by the Russian Communist Party does not seem to have weakened those attitudes. In contemporary Russia, the Orthodox church seems as strong as ever.

An interesting article to give some context to the Orthodox church in Russia:

The Russian Orthodox Church and the Impact of Bolshevism

106

Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada

by poopie in

jw
friends

because he was shunned by his customers?.

OrphanCrow

Ruby: Until orphancrow can show me evidence from the WTS' literature that business relationships with disfellowshipped individuals are allowed

You will note that I had been talking about the "rules" that existed prior to the early 70s and I was curious as to when the rules changed.

I did not make any claim that those rules are the same now and I have no intention ( and I never did) to show you that those rules are the same now. Never did. I never said what you say that I did. You have added your own twist to my words.

However, for the sake of historical accuracy (and it has nothing to do with the present situation concerning disfellowshipping) this quote comes from 1952 and would be the one that dictated the behavior of my father and his generation of JWs and it is the one that explains why the JWs in my congregation from the 60s would still do business with a disfellowshipped person:

***w 52 12/1 p. 735 Questions From Readers***

Is it proper for a Christian witness of Jehovah to have business relationships with one who has been disfellowshiped?—F.G.,California.

The circumstances of each case might influence the answer. Generally speaking, it would be desirable for us to have no contact with disfellowshiped persons, either in business or in social and spiritual ways. If it is possible to make new business connections relative to employer, employee, the acquiring of raw materials or the performance of needed services, and so forth, it would be advisable to do so. However, if circumstances do not allow for this as you continue to make necessary provision for yourself or family in a material way, then you may decide to continue the business contact with a disfellowshiped person. But if you deem this necessary, you must be very careful to see to it that you do not associate with the ousted one and do not discuss spiritual matters with him. Always bear in mind that our spiritual interests are of far greater concern to us than material interests, and follow closely the recommendations of the congregation regarding one who has been disfellowshiped. We safeguard not only our own personal spiritual interests by so doing, but also those of our brothers, and especially those of weaker ones or new ones who might be easily stumbled by our contact with disfellowshiped persons.

Of course the WT encourages JWs not to do business with a disfellowshipped person but the provision was still there to continue to if necessary.

110

Exjw activists protesting inside a Kingdom Hall today!

by Crazyguy in

spoonfed nomore, has uploaded a video on his youtube site, of exjw activists protesting inside a kingdom hall during this sunday meeting.

several people speak out.

if some one can put a link on here that would be awesome, i can’t figure out how to do it with an i phone.

OrphanCrow

brokenkite: All diapers aside, I think the treatment of women in the religion is a very worthy problem to harp on and make more public

Absolutely it is. It is a fundamental doctrine that is responsible for much damaging behavior. The lack of women in positions of power was one of the primary criticisms leveled by the ARC towards the Org.

Changes will not happen within the org until and unless there is a shift in power and where that power shift has to occur is within the women members. Women have to stop being silent - they are the majority and they have no voice. They are nothing in the WT power structure. And they will remain nothing until they have the full support of exJW males.

About the diapers - if the public knew that JW women were required to wear diapers on their heads, it would likely raise a lot of eyebrows. Heh - maybe we should just have a diaper hat contest to see who can come up with the best diaper hat. Or maybe we can have a diaper mailing drive - you know, "Mail a Diaper to a GB" campaign. Send diapers to Warwick. Or to branch offices wherever you are. Flood the org with diapers.

110

Exjw activists protesting inside a Kingdom Hall today!

by Crazyguy in

spoonfed nomore, has uploaded a video on his youtube site, of exjw activists protesting inside a kingdom hall during this sunday meeting.

several people speak out.

if some one can put a link on here that would be awesome, i can’t figure out how to do it with an i phone.

OrphanCrow

Minus 2, huh?

Lol! Who doesn't like the idea of wearing diapers on their heads?

Seriously? I will know that the activists are serious when and if they chose to publicly show that they support the women trapped inside that cult by standing in solidarity with them - showing that they empathize with the plight of the women who are oppressed, who are raped and disfellowshipped for it, who have no say in handing out justice to those who rape their children.

Serious about activism? are you an exJW elder? Wear a diaper on your head, somebody please, and I will know that you are serious about changing the WT's oppressive tactics and doctrines. Until then, you are just blowing your own horn. I will have serious and long abiding respect for any exJW elder (or any man, for that matter) who protests the WT by wearing a diaper or a hanky on their head. Please do.

110

Exjw activists protesting inside a Kingdom Hall today!

by Crazyguy in

spoonfed nomore, has uploaded a video on his youtube site, of exjw activists protesting inside a kingdom hall during this sunday meeting.

several people speak out.

if some one can put a link on here that would be awesome, i can’t figure out how to do it with an i phone.

OrphanCrow

Kudos to all who were committed enough to show up and make their voice known.

From the reports so far, though, it appears like a bit of foresight could go a long way in any future protests or activism.

BrokenKite, your observations are astute and valuable, if anyone cares to take them into account.

For future protests - think "performance", think "theme", think "subversion"

You have to subvert and confront and challenge. For example: dress all women (like, about a hundred of them or more - exJW women and non-exJW women supporters) in suits, ties and shiny shoes (dress like elders) and have the women march in a form that allows for a large group of children to be inside their 'form' and then, converge on the front gate - not sure the role that the men would take - they would do something*. (*Lol! maybe they can follow the group of women and wear hankies and diapers on their heads)

The subversion happens when the activists do something to challenge the cult's norm - change it up - challenge. In an organized and profound way - in a way that looks good on camera. A performance.

106

Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada

by poopie in

jw
friends

because he was shunned by his customers?.

OrphanCrow

Ruby: watchtower restricts necessary business transactions to between family members only and anything more than this (carrying on business with business associates who are disfellowshipped and are outside of family) are considered wrong.

When did this change?

It must have been post-early 70s because when I was still 'in', business dealings were the only thing that a JW could engage in with a disfellowshipped person. You could do business with a shunned one but, once you walked out of his place of business, you couldn't go and have coffee with him/her. You were restricted from "fellowship" with them but definitely not from business dealings.

During Rutherford years, and even during the Knorr years, it was okay to continue business dealings with a disfellowshipped person regardless of his/her spiritual standing in the congregation. There are several incidences documented where both Rutherford and Knorr continued their business associations with disfellowshipped persons. Business was always protected.

57

Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall

by TerryWalstrom in

http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.

OrphanCrow

fisherman: OC, who is the appellant in the related SCC case?

yeah, sorry...I got it mixed up/backwards and it was too late to edit

Distracted - making candies again

57

Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall

by TerryWalstrom in

http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.

OrphanCrow

cha ching: The WT said (basically) "we are just a religion, we are not a 'court' or taking over the judicial process"...... What do they call this 'spiritual process to help this poor man to see his errors?'
A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

Typical Watchtoweresque language twisting.

"This is not a pipe"

The Watchtower tries to twist under the language limbo bar whenever they have to address secular authorities. What is important, I think, in this case and in many situations like it, is that the congregant views the process as a judicial one. They do not view the JC as a "pastoral visit" where the elders are meeting to comfort and guide them. They know and understand that a JC is for discipline and not for pastoral care meeting.

This would be similar to how an application to the courts for a restraining order is approached. The decision as to whether to grant such an order will hinge on whether or not the one applying for that order views another person as a threat. It is the applicant's view of the matter and their understanding of what constitutes a threat that has the most bearing.

Likewise in this situation. It isn't the WT's interpretation of JCs that should have the most bearing - it is the appellant's interpretation of the JC hearings that should carry the most weight.

57

Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall

by TerryWalstrom in

http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.

OrphanCrow

JD: the consideration that the member gets is the association of other members

I think they get more than just that.

What about the HLC support? That is available to baptized JWs and their children. And only available as a benefit of JW membership. You have to be a JW to receive HLC support.